Talk:Marco Rubio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't think Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio is notable enough in her own right to merit a separate article in Wikipedia. Any relevant material can be easily merged here in the Personal life section. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. // Psemmler (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Clearly this individual has notability on her own merits. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Notable for what? A former cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins, or being the spouse of Rubio is not notable for a separate article. Can you provide some arguments? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Being a Miami Dolphins cheerleader is not just being a cheerleader, it is a job and career and celebrity status. For several years. Her status as "First wife" of Marco Rubio is also notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Total nonsense. Notability is not inherited by marriage, and being a cheerleader is absolutely not notable. I will start an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are enough sources that discuss her exclusively that provide vindication of her notability. - Informant16 9 January 2016

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Characterizing Rubio's words in the language of his opponents, without quoting him[edit]

This [1] is inappropriate. It is not fair to characterize Rubio's words in the way his opponents would talk about them, then go on to say that Politifact says he is wrong, without even quoting what he said. Additionally, it's a violation of WP:Synth.CometEncke (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If Rubio finds himself in the position of being an opponent of mainstream scientists, that is indeed a difficult position to be in -- but it's not our problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. However, the current version, by saying that "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming and that proposals to address climate change would be ineffective and economically harmful.", gives a misleading impression of what Rubio actually said. Specifically, the phrase "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change", does not accurately reflect what he told the National Press Club, which is the quote that the article is based on. I encourage you to go to the ABC source, and look at the quote. What he is saying is that he believes that the notion that climate change is "directly and almost solely attributable to human activity" is unproven. But if you look at the linked article on the scientific understanding of climate change, even the lead portion of that article does not make such an assertion. Therefore, in addition to being unfair, the current version is simply wrong. For this reason, although I don't like revert wars, I am going to go ahead and re-revert. I will, however, do so without block quotes, which I am told are an NPOV concern.CometEncke (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
According to the source: "Rubio says he thinks the laws won’t work — but will hurt the economy in a “devastating” way." and "Rubio said. “The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?”. To conform more closely to the source, we could change "... arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..." to "... questioning whether human activity plays a major role in global warming...". But let's please not remove sources.- MrX 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We don't characterize Rubio's position on his oppponents' terms, so the premise of this talk page section is fundamentally incorrect. We characterize Rubio's position in the terms of independent, reliable sources (such as Politifact), which is what we're obliged to do by basic site policies. MastCell Talk 02:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Which source says that Rubio does not accept the scientific understanding of climate change, exactly? I must have missed it. Perhaps the article forgot to cite it? CometEncke (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There are innumerable independent, reliable sources attesting to the fact that Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change (namely, that it is driven primarily by human activity). I'm surprised you're having trouble finding them. I've attached a handful below:
Let me know which ones you would like to use for the article, or feel free to do some looking yourself. MastCell Talk 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
If you are saying he either disputes the extent of, or altogether disputes, the connection between temperature and human activities, I agree with you. But implicit in your remarks is another assertion, which is demonstratably false -- the assertion that that connection constitutes the entire scientific understanding of climate change. That is incontrovertibly false, just as much as the assertion about Rubio you appear to imagine that I am making. CometEncke (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..." from the article makes no claim about "the entire scientific understanding". It's a straw man. "The scientific understanding" would be understood by a reasonable reader with grade six education to mean "scientific consensus", in other words, the widely-held view among scientists.- MrX 14:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a reasonable third-grader would understand it would not detract at all from this Wikipedia article to say that "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of human contributions to climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Your sentence preceding the part in quotation marks is difficult to parse. The phrasing proposed in quotation marks is awkward and repetitive, and the current wording is better. Any reasonable reader will correctly understand the second half of the existing sentence to be refining the first half. --JBL (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
We could write that "Rubio disputes widely accepted scientific truth, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..." But such a broad statement would be too general. Specific is better. I hope you can parse that. Anyway, it's not a huge problem as far as I'm concerned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. --JBL (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Does the sourcing given support the statement "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change"?[edit]

The article contains the following passage: Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming . . . The article points two two sources [2][3]. A third source, not currently linked in the article, also discusses Rubio's remarks: [4]. Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article? CometEncke (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • No, Rubio agrees with portions of the scientific consensus (the earth is warming), has taken no position that I can find on other portions (sea level is rising), and, as the sources show, says be believes another portion (humans are the primary cause) is either unproven or false (not entirely clear which he believes). That's a far cry from disputing the entire scientific understanding, as the article states. EDIT: I find it rather disheartening that none of the "yes" voters has even addressed my actual concern. LATER EDIT (2/12): In light of the recent spin-out of the political positions, it is now arguable whether this RfC better applies here or at Political positions of Marco Rubio. Despite my obvious interest in the RfC per se, I'm actually not taking any position on that until I see some precedent, other than a suggestion that the closer should consider the issue.[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The scientific understanding of climate change is that it is occurring primarily as a result of human activity. Rubio disputes this. There are innumerable independent, reliable sources attesting to Rubio's position (a subset of which I've provided here). It is sort of incomprehensible that we need an RfC to authorize us to state an obvious, well-sourced fact, although I guess it is election season... MastCell Talk 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seek consensus and ye shall find it. I won't wade into this, except to say that there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not subscribe to every facet of the scientific consensus about climate change, even though they do not dispute that overall consensus. If you stick closely to what the sources say, I think the editors in dispute can reach agreement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. The two sources cited are more than sufficient, and corroborated by numerous other sources as pointed out by MastCell. Even the ABC News article linked by the OP supports the content in question when Rubio says: "The fundamental question is whether man-made activity is what's contributing to it. I understand that people say there's a significant scientific consensus on that issue, but I've actually seen reasonable debate on that principle." Rubio considers the debate about anthropogenic climate change to be ongoing and reasonable, while the overwhelming majority of scientists consider it settled. That's the dispute. - MrX 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, in particular with the LA Times source. Also see the Scientific American. Personally, I have the impression that he panders to the Republican base and donors, possibly against his better judgment, but there is no doubt that he does. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
CometEncke, maybe you have not made your concern clear enough? Yes, I think that the sources are sufficient to support the bolded statement, and I offered an additional source supporting the claim. What, if not that, is your concern? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's the first two sentences after the bolded word "no" in my vote. Are they unclear? CometEncke (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
CometEncke, would you approve of "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of human contributions to climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at what he actually says, it seems like sometimes he says just what you said, and other times he says something more along the lines of "arguing that it is not proven that human activity plays a major role in global warming." How to handle that discrepancy I don't know. CometEncke (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe you ought to figure out how you want to handle it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If I support MOND, I dispute general relativity, even if I don't disagree with all of it. Likewise, many climate science deniers agree with, say, the existence of temperature, some even that global temperature changes. But they disagree with core parts of the scientific consensus and hence the consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
On the criterion you are suggesting, it would be quite easy to argue that the IPCC itself does not agree with the scientific consensus of plant biology, given their chronic lack of clarity about the blindingly obvious impact of CO2 rise on plant growth in general and agriculture in particular.CometEncke (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"Blindingly obvious" to whom? From a quick look at the literature you seem to argue akin to "iron is necessary to prevent anemia, so a sword in the stomach cannot be bad for you". In other words, while CO2 in isolation has a positive effect on some plants in some situations, things become a lot more complicated if you take other factors into account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. --JBL (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. The statement is unambiguously supported by now three (numbered 144, 145, 146) references. CometEncke: the statement does not say that he disputes every aspect of the scientific understand, indeed it makes it clear which aspect he has doubts about. Maproom (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the sources provided clearly support that statement. The LA Times piece is especially clear about it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the header question "Does the sourcing given support the statement?" and the question in the last sentence of the abstract "Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article?" are not precisely the same thing, but answering to the section header question - yes, the sources support that statement.--Mondiad (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral, From my understanding, Rubio (from this article) believes in non-anthropogenic climate change, but not anthropogenic climate change. So he believes in natural occurring changes in climate. Personally I do not like the term "Climate Change" as it is extremely vague because it could also refer to the natural change in climate e.g. The Earth plunging into an ice age due to natural changes in its orbit can also be "Climate change". If termed properly Rubio should've said that he rejects anthropogenic climate change, (to be even clearer "anthropogenic global warming") and believes in non-anthropogenic climate change. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does the text say scientific understanding as opposed to the article who says scientific opinion? I'm not saying it's particularly different but there's probably a reason one word has been picked over another since that was a conscious choice to pipe it that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - on the contrary, the cites show him in loose acceptance of the existence of climate change and that human factors play in. They seem mosly a couple liberal-lean papers poking at him (no surprise) for opposing the White House proposals (since he's Republican, also no surprise). It did not cover each of the bullets at Scientific opinion on climate change, but I think what's there accepts major items. I also think the wording 'dispute' and 'arguing' are factually incorrect as he is not literally arguing or disputing with a scientific group. I wouldn't say 'oppose' or 'support' either without an act to do so -- funding, voting, proposing a bill, even just marching or signing a petition but some definite action. Just answering questions from journalist with no action to them ... not so much. Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • If you're capable of dismissing the wealth of reliable sources (including the Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, the Christian Science Monitor, PolitiFact, etc) as "a couple liberal-lean papers" [sic], then I think our understandings of site policy are extremely divergent. You also contend that Rubio exhibits a "loose acceptance" of the role that human activity plays in climate change. Please elaborate on the sources underlying your belief; as I've documented above, reliable sources seem essentially unanimous in noting that Rubio either ignores or denies a human role in climate change. One of us is clearly misinterpreting available sources; if it's me, I'd be happy to be enlightened. MastCell Talk 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • MastCell - Yes, I and also you must dismiss other sources, since that is what the RfC asks about. The question is if just the Miami Herald and the LATimes articles are sufficient for the wording of the wiki line. Instead I see (a) Miami factually shows the contrary and (b) These particular papers open it to seeming a 'just a couple liberal-lean papers poke at him' versus a neutral presentation. The Miami article to the contrary includes Rubio quoted as actually conveying the scientific consensus and loosely agreeing with it. “I’ve never denied that there is a climate change,” and “Scientists have concluded, in their opinion, that because we have produced more carbon into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, that’s the reason why, in their opinion, the earth’s trendlines are warming,”. The article wording which is not supported has "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change", and that wording being unlimited and active is obviously wrong. There would need to be demonstration of him actively putting forward contrary proposals to be 'Rubio disputes' and it would have to be on all or at least the fundamental points. Otherwise it exaggerates what should say 'some of the scientific understanding'. Bottom line -- the two cites would be more appropriately characterized as weak or partial acceptance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Your argument is much like saying that someone who has invented a perpetual motion machine, turned his refrigerator into a time-travel spaceship, and is convinced he can levitate the Empire State Building through sheer force of will disputes only "some" of our understanding of physics because, hey, he accepts that heliocentrism may not be completely wrong. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite obviously. Anyone who claims otherwise either hasn't read those sources or has no clue what the "scientific understanding of climate change" is. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite obviously.
  • "“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.”" - Rubio on ABC's This Week in 2014 (via New Republic
  • "Humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason: I believe the climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing." - Rubio on Face the Nation (via Washington Post)
  • "Marco Rubio (junior U.S. senator from Florida) believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man" - Scientific American
  • "[the climate] has always been changing ... and what percentage of that is due to man's activity is not something there is a consensus on." - Rubio on Fox News (via NPR) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites - ??? This acts like 'No those two are not enough' on the Miami and LA articles, but it started Yes ... again the RFC is not Rubios position, it is whether the two cites stated do the job for the wording as shown -- or not. Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the sources were included in the RfC question or not. This thread is about whether sources support the inclusion of a statement. We're not going to start a new RfC for each specific set of sources, asking over and over "what about these specific sources?" to which people are only allowed to say yes or no without presenting any others. Wikipedia requires that potentially contentious statements are supported by reliable sources. All that matters if whether available sourcing supports inclusion of the statement. Even if no sources were cited at all at the outset of the RfC it would still make sense to consider the question in the context of sources people bring up over the course of the RfC. Finding additional sources only renders moot any assumptions built into the premise that there are only 2 or 3 sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhodo -- just follow the cites -- the broad and absolute language did not give sufficient cite, which IS what was the topic, and just following cites and conveying due weight still adds up to partial support, or 'grudging' or ' doubtful on parts'. The language in article is just too broad to fit the facts. Markbassett (talk)
The language is "too broad" only if we are willing to disregard what the "scientific understanding of climate change" actually is. Human causation is fundamental to the scientific understanding of present-day climate change, just as evolution is fundamental to biology. The real problem with the sentence is that "disputes" is too weak; "rejects" is more accurate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mark I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it looks like my response would be to say more or less the same thing I did above. If you're simply disagreeing that the sources I pointed to do not support the proposed text, then my only response would be something along the lines of what Boris started with just above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhodo YOUR cites say Rubio accepts climate change, and in 3 of 4 that humans are a factor. Not accurate to say this as "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding". One could say "disputes Obamas plans" or "Rubio is often criticized", or "weak, grudging, partial" even. But the proposed wording is too broad to match the cites. And again has appearance of couple more democrat-leaning papers sniping at Repubs - seems partisan - mostly on they criticized Obama -- also no surprise. Markbassett (talk)
The question is not "does Marco Rubio 'accept climate change'". The question is whether "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change". And those sources clearly support that statement. Most of the quotes above are his own words, so "the liberal media" tack doesn't seem relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The LA Times article quite clearly supports the statement, as does the ABC source, for that matter. One could quibble about the exact meaning of "dispute" if one only had the Miami Herald article, although that would be a real stretch, but it's irrelevant anyway, since the LA Times piece is unequivocal. Anaxial (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes the scientifically relevant part of understanding climate change is understanding that there is overwhelming evidence that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuel. The sources clearly show that he does not accept this evidence or argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - A denier is a denier is a denier. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The language of this particular vote is inappropriate. CometEncke (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - the three sources clearly support the statement. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but check sources. Here by Legobot. In the initial RfC, these three sources are provided:1,2, 3. 1 isn't really useful as there isn't anything specific enough. Tossing aside rhetoric trying to claim denialism is smear tactic, etc., while a common argument of deniers, isn't good enough for the claim. Simply being opposed to some unspecificed fixes doesn't quite work either. Source 2 and 3 however are appropriate for saying he doesn't believe human activity is causing climate change, and that supports the content in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016[edit]

He is a Hispanic American not Latino American because he comes from Cuba. Kaybe123 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cuba is considered part of Latin America. See Rangel, Carlos (1977). The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. pp. 3–5. ISBN 978-0-15-148795-0.  See also Skidmore, Thomas E.; Peter H. Smith (2005). Modern Latin America (6 ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-0-19-517013-9. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Too long[edit]

Some sections can and should be split to separate articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

One of these would definitely be moving his political positions into a separate article at Political positions of Marco Rubio which is a redirect at the moment. Idealist343 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Not really. The section here need to summarize his key political positions, per WP:SUMMARY. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's verbatim the same as the "Overall political stance" section in the main article. Feel free to revise both, but they're perfectly in sync.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, they are not. we need to summarize the article not just a section of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That section summarizes the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't find that this article is especially long, but it wouldn't hurt to trim some detail. I object to removing the 'Political positions' section without leaving a summary of all of his notable political positions. There's some legislative detail that can be trimmed from the 'U.S. Senate section' and some detail could easily be removed from the 'Adjunct professor at Florida International University' section. - MrX 12:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • FWIW I agree with both the spin-out and the idea that it should not be spun out without leaving a proper summary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is 117,541 bytes. The Hillary Clinton article is 227,618 bytes. Barack Obama is 274,355 bytes. John McCain is 189,812 bytes. Bernie Sanders is 121,421. I'm removing the tag until there's some evidence that it's warranted.CFredkin (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The Political positions of Marco Rubio now has a proper lead based on material from the PBS NewsHour. That lead is also repeated in the pertinent section of this article. The only thing I did not mention is life/abortion since I'm not supposed to edit regarding that issue, per ArbCom edict of ages ago. I only mention this so that someone else can take care of that. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The edits referenced above by Anythingyouwant look fine to me. My objection is to a claim that the article is too long at this point.CFredkin (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The Hillary Clinton article is not a good example, because it's badly bloated (like the others you mentioned). WP:TOOLONG says: "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The policy also says that the right thing to do is not to slap a tag on an article that is longer than the guideline, or to start chopping it up, but instead one should start a discussion about whether shortening is appropriate or if the additional length is justified because of the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, I don't favor slapping tags on an article before talk page discussion has encountered difficulties. Anyway, the tag is off this section now, and the discussion has been going on productively in this talk page section for over 20 hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Process-wise, can we please follow WP:BRD? Give it a few days, see which way people are leaning. Personally, I haven't had any chance to look at this, but the 28k-byte changes back and forth in the history make it harder to do. CometEncke (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be glad to leave it the way it is now, for a few days, because no one has explained why we need to repeat everything at Political positions of Marco Rubio, and no one has asserted that the current summary of his political positions (including recently-added material from the PBS NewsHour) is in any way inadequate or otherwise improper.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, WP:BRD would suggest putting it back to where it was before. That said, the last thing this needs is another person warring it back and forth, and I'm not going to, at least not now. Looking at the material that is being warred over, I did have one question. It seemed like a lot of it was in alphabetical order, but a few things (drug policy) were way out of alpha order. Is there any kind of policy on that? CometEncke (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If someone reverts without giving any reason whatsoever, then I don't think that qualifies as the "R" in "BRD". Anyhow, you'll see that I put the "drug policy" section in alphabetical order at Political positions of Marco Rubio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's please quit removing this section until there is some consensus on how it should be summarized. The PBS article is a poor prototype in my opinion. For example, the net neutrality description is lacking nuance. You also omitted his position on gun rights, and abortion. Euphemisms like "Rubio believes marriage is between a man and a woman." do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Let's try a straightforward "Rubio opposes same sex marriage (and apparently wants to roll back the Supreme Court decision making it legal[5])".- MrX 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
We could delete the whole article until we agree on every point. But I think the rational thing would be to stop repeating verbatim everything at Political positions of Marco Rubio, and simply improve the summary of it. I am fine elaborating a little bit on the same-sex marriage position, and the PBS article provides such elaboration, but I'm not for saying that PBS has a slant on this that is too conservative for Wikipedia. Regardng abortion, I already explained why someone else has to fill in that blank, not me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The separate article was a redirect until you turned it into an article. If you're not happy with duplication, make it back into a redirect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with those who proposed above having a separate article on political positions, so I'm not deleting it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but then you won't sway anyone with the "duplication" argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed the new summary paragraph for the time being. Currently it's just adding needless redundancy to the article.CFredkin (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's redundant to summarize political positions before detailing them, any more than it's redundant to have a lead before having the rest of an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that the warring has stopped (thanks), I took a look at the articles for the other four leading 2016 candidates (Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, and Trump). All four of them do have a summary of political positions with more detail in a sub-article. So for consistency, I think that would make sense here. CometEncke (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently Clinton's summary of her Political Positions consists of a number of ratings of her position on the conservative vs. liberal spectrum, as Rubio's does currently.CFredkin (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That style would be best, and is what I started out replacing this section with. But others objected that they wanted a summary of particular issues, so I got a summary from PBS NewsHour. Then people objected that the PBS NewsHour summary is inadequate, so I combined it with a summary from the New York Times. And then that was removed. Any one of these iterations would be better than the detailed issue-by-issue approach that we have now. We are supposed to summarize what's at Political positions of Marco Rubio, but I cannot get a summary of that article into this one, even if it's merely in addition to what's already here. So I invite others to give it a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the consensus above formed by Cwobeel, Idealist343, Rhododendrites, CometEncke, and myself, I expect to again remove the detailed issue positions soon, and install a hat note linking to Political positions of Marco Rubio. That article is identical to what's already in this one. I haven't inserted any new sources into either article regarding Rubio's political positions; both articles use sources that have been in this article for a long time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection as long as we don't lose any major points, and as long as we don't use euphemistic wording. I would help, but I'm going to be busy IRL for the next few days.- MrX 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The way that the summary is set up, it relies on the PBS and NYT surveys to pick out the major issues, and both surveys have been in this BLP a long time (not inserted by me). P.S. If Rubio has a euphemistic belief or position, and these survey articles say so, then I wouldn't feel comfortable circumventing it in a summary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Now I get to do some stuff IRL.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: It seems like you took the opportunity to polish up some of the political positions so that bad things sound good. For example, "on climate change, he believes temperatures have increased, but denies — or is reluctant to acknowledge — the consensus of the scientific community that it is caused by humans, and he asserts that other nations like China are mainly responsible;" ← That is not even close to the consensus version of this material that was in the article, so I changed it to use the exact wording in the consensus version. - MrX 13:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
If people are going to mess about like this (i.e., watering down a formulation previously arranged via consensus), we can go back to having "political positions" in this article (and restoring the sub into a redirect). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I correctly followed the two survey articles about his political positions, from PBS and NYT. I had hoped we could stick to those two sources which pick out the major issues of greatest relevance, and concisely summarize where he stands. Details and further sources are available at Political positions of Marco Rubio. Of course, if you think the NYT and PBS are euphemistic, unreliable, right-wing sources, then understandably you might disagree with the approach I took.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you need help finding the RfC above? It hasn't been closed yet, but it's obvious how it will be closed (and the sentence in question was previously in the article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

{od} It's an interesting question what happens with an RfC that is started at article A, but by the end, it's an arguable question whether it better applies to article A or article B. Is anyone aware of any precedent on that? CometEncke (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Immigration section[edit]

That section does not come close to being NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How specifically is the section NPOV?CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of the debate flub into the main article/presidential run section?[edit]

Seems like, according to many press outlets, the repeated line of the debate flub has been called historic and a defining moment in Rubio's career and campaign. It should be included in some capacity. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly this was Rubio's Howard Dean moment. It may be worth a brief mention here, and even more so at the campaign article.- MrX 01:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Grossly out of step with NPOV[edit]

is the phrase 'The university and Rubio's office dispute the notion that the teaching position was based on a "sweetheart deal"'. That's insinuating guilt by the frankly underhanded means of putting in the denial. I will restrain myself for the moment, based solely on my dislike of revert wars, but frankly, that's way over the line. For example, I notice that the Hillary Clinton article does not deny that any "donations" the Clinton Foundation received might have had anything to do with any official decisions she made at State. CometEncke (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume it's directly supported by the source, but I think it can be taken out. It sounds a bit non-neutral and doesn't really add much to the bio.- MrX 01:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It is directly supported by the source. Since there were accusations of a sweetheart deal, it seemed only fair to Rubio that we also include the denial. I'm open to modifying that section, and encourage you to give it a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence should go. I think it comes across as WP:WEASEL words.Eeyoresdream (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, per the consensus above, I've taken it out. Thank you all for your inputs. CometEncke (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


I find this edit by Cwobeel to be highly objectionable. The edit summary given was, "this is a bio". Yes, Cwobeel, I am aware that the article is a biography. I fail to see why that means that the name of a newspaper (The Washington Post) should not be linked, or why the section "Personal life" must repeat that Marco Rubio was briefly a Mormon as a child, something already explained clearly in the section "Early life, education, and entry into politics". Would you please have the courtesy to explain yourself properly, instead of with cryptic edit summaries? Is there some special reason why Rubio's being briefly a Mormon is so very important it must be repeated twice? Please do tell. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that religion during childhood doesn't need to be repeated in two different sections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Fine, thank you for saying so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)